BAR EXAMINATION

All applicants for admission shall file with the clerk of the Supreme Court the evidence required by section 2 of this rule at least fifteen (15) days before the
beginning of the examination.
 If not embraced within section 3 and 4 of this rule
- they shall also file within the same period the affidavit and certificate required by section 5, and
RoC 138 SEC 7  if embraced within sections 3 and 4
- they shall exhibit
Time for filing proof of qualifications  a license evidencing the fact of their admission to practice,
 satisfactory evidence that the same has not been revoked, and
 certificates as to their professional standing.
 Applicants shall also file at the same time their own affidavits as to their age, residence, and citizenship.

Notice of applications for admission shall be published by the clerk of the Supreme Court in newspapers published in
 Pilipino, English and Spanish,
RoC 138 SEC 8
 for at least ten (10) days
Notice of applications  before the beginning of the examination.

Applicants, not otherwise provided for in sections 3 and 4 of this rule, shall be subjected to examinations in the following subjects:
 Civil Law;
 Labor and Social Legislation;
 Mercantile Law;
 Criminal Law;
RoC 138 SEC 9
 Political Law (Constitutional Law, Public Corporations, and Public Officers);
Examination; subjects  International Law (Private and Public);
 Taxation;
 Remedial Law (Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and Evidence);
 Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises (in Pleadings and Conveyancing).

Persons taking the examination shall not bring papers, books or notes into the examination rooms.
 The questions shall be the same for all examinees and a copy thereof, in English or Spanish, shall be given to each examinee.
 Examinees shall answer the questions personally without help from anyone.
RoC 138 SEC 10 Upon verified application made by an examinee stating that his penmanship is so poor that it will be difficult to read his answers without much loss of time,
Bar examination, by questions and answers,  the Supreme Court may allow such examinee to use a typewriter in answering the questions.
and in writing - Only noiseless typewriters shall be allowed to be used.

The committee of bar examiner shall take such precautions as are necessary to prevent the substitution of papers or commission of other frauds.
 Examinees shall not place their names on the examination papers.
 No oral examination shall be given.

Examinations for admission to the bar of the Philippines shall take place annually in the City of Manila.
 They shall be held in four days to be designated by the chairman of the committee on bar examiners.
RoC 138 SEC 11  The subjects shall be distributed as follows:
- First day: Political and International Law (morning) and Labor and Social Legislation (afternoon);
Annual examination - Second day: Civil Law (morning) and Taxation (afternoon);
- Third day: Mercantile Law (morning) and Criminal Law (afternoon);
- Fourth day: Remedial Law (morning) and legal Ethics and Practical Exercises (afternoon).

Examinations shall be conducted by a committee of bar examiners to be appointed by the Supreme Court.
 This committee shall be composed of a Justice of the Supreme Court,
RoC 138 SEC 12 - who shall act as chairman, and
- who shall be designated by the court to serve for one year,
Committee of examiners.  and eight members of the bar of the Philippines,
- who shall hold office for a period of one year.
 The names of the members of this committee shall be published in each volume of the official reports.

No candidate shall endeavor to

 influence any member of the committee, and
RoC 138 SEC 13  during examination the candidates shall not communicate with each other nor shall they give or receive any assistance.
Disciplinary measures.
The candidate who violates this provisions, or any other provision of this rule, shall be
 barred from the examination, and
 the same to count as a failure against him, and

RoC 138 SEC 14
Passing average.
RoC 138 SEC 15
Report of the committee; filing of examination
papers.
RoC 138 SEC 16
Failing candidates to take review course.
B.M. No. 1153 (Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito
P. Mendoza Proposing Reforms in the Bar
Examinations Through Amendments to
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court).
 further disciplinary action, including permanent disqualification, may be taken in the discretion of the court.
In order that a candidate may be deemed to have passed his examinations successfully,
 he must have obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects,
- without falling below 50 per cent in any subjects.
 In determining the average, the subjects in the examination shall be given the following relative weights:
- Civil Law, 15 per cent;
- Labor and Social Legislation, 10 per cent;
- Mercantile Law, 15 per cent;
- Criminal Law; 10 per cent;
- Political and International Law, 15 per cent;
- Taxation, 10 per cent;
- Remedial Law, 20 per cent;
- Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises, 5 per cent.
Not later than February 15th after the examination, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable,
 the committee shall file its report on the result of such examination.
 The examination papers and notes of the committee shall be filed with the clerk
- and may there be examined by the parties in interest, after the court has approved the report.
Candidates who have failed the bar examinations for three times shall be disqualified from taking another examination
 unless they show the satisfaction of the court that they have
- enrolled in and passed regular fourth year review classes as well as
- attended a pre-bar review course in a recognized law school.
-
The professors of the individual review subjects attended by the candidates under this rule shall
 certify under oath that
- the candidates have regularly attended classes and passed the subjects
 under the same conditions as ordinary students and the ratings obtained by them in the particular subject.
The Court Resolved to APPROVE the proposed amendments to Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138, to wit:
SEC. 5.Additional Requirement for Other Applicants.
All applicants for admission other than those referred to in the two preceding sections shall, before being admitted to the examination, satisfactorily show that
 they have successfully completed all the prescribed courses for the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree, in a law school or university
officially recognized by the Philippine Government or by the proper authority in the foreign jurisdiction where the degree has been granted.
No applicant who obtained the Bachelor of Laws degree in this jurisdiction shall be admitted to the bar examination unless he or she has satisfactorily completed
the following course in a law school or university duly recognized by the government:
 civil law,
 commercial law,
 remedial law,
 criminal law,
 public and private international law,
 political law,
 labor and social legislation,
 medical jurisprudence, taxation and
 legal ethics.
A Filipino citizen who graduated from a foreign law school shall be admitted to the bar examination only upon submission to the Supreme Court of certifications showing:
 (a) completion of all courses leading to the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree;
 (b) recognition or accreditation of the law school by the proper authority; and
 (c) completion of all the fourth year subjects in the Bachelor of Laws academic program in a law school duly recognized by the Philippine Government.
SEC. 6.Pre-Law.
An applicant for admission to the bar examination shall present a certificate issued by the proper government agency that, before commencing the study of law, he or
she had
 pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized and recognized university or college,
- requiring for admission thereto the completion of a four-year high school course,
 the course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences.
A Filipino citizen who completed and obtained his or her Bachelor of Laws degree or its equivalent in a foreign law school must present proof of having
 completed a separate bachelor's degree course.
 The Clerk of Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, is hereby directed to CIRCULARIZE this resolution among all law schools in the country.

RESOLUTION
ON
REFORM IN THE BAR EXAMINANTIONS

WHEREAS, pursuant to its Constitutional authority to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law, the Supreme Court en bancitem in its Resolution of 21
March 2000, created a "Special Study Group on Bar Examination Reforms" to conduct studies on steps to further safeguard the integrity of the Bar Examinations and to make them
effective tools in measuring the adequacy of the law curriculum and the quality of the instruction given by law schools";

WHEREAS, the Special Study Group, with Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) Chancellor Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio-Herrera as a chairperson and retired Justice Jose Y.
Feria and retired Justice Camilo D. Quiason as members, submitted to the Supreme Court its Final Report, dated 18 September 2000, containing its findings and
recommendations;

WHEREAS, on 21 August 2001, the Supreme Court en banc referred, for further study, report and recommendation, the Final Report of the Special Study Group to the
Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters (CLEBM) headed by Justice Jose C. Vitug;

WHEREAS, in connection with the discussion on the proposed reforms in the bar examinations, Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, then a Member of the CLEBM, submitted a Paper,
entitled "Toward Meaningful Reforms in the Bar Examination" with a Primer, proposing structural and administrative reforms, changes in the design and construction of questions, and
the methodological reforms concerning the marking anf grading of the essay questions in the bar examination;

WHEREAS, proposals and comments were likewise received from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Philippine Association of Law Schools, the Philippine Association of
Law Professors, the Commission on Higher Education, the University of the Philippines College of Law, Arellano Law Foundation, the Philippine Lawyers Association, the Philippine
Bar Association and other prominent personalities from the Bench and the Bar;

WHEREAS, considering her Memorandum to the Chief Justice on "Proposed Technical Assistance Project on Legal Education," dated 27 February 2003, Program Director Evelyn
Toledo-Dumdum of the Program Management Office (PMO) was invited to a meeting of the CLEBM;

WHEREAS, under the auspices of the PMO, the CLEBM conducted fur (4) regional round-table discussions with the law deans, professors, the students and members of the
Integrated Bar of he Philippines for (a) the National Capital Region, at Manila Diamond Hotel on 19 November 2003; (b) Mindanao, at the Grand Regal Hotel Davao City on 23
January 2004; (c) the Visayas, at the Montebello Hotel in Cebu City on January 2004; and (d) Luzon, at the Pan Pacific Hotel in Manila on 6 February 2004.

Reforms in the Bar Examinations, BM No. WHEREAS, in a Special Meeting of the CLEBM at the Pan Pacific Hotel on 23 April 2004, the Committee heard the views of Ms. Erica Moeser, the Chief Executive Officer and
1161 President of the National Conference of Board Examiners in the United States of America on a number of proposed bar reforms;

WHEREAS, the CLEBM, after extensive deliberation and consultation, has arived at certain recommendations for consideration by the Supreme Court and submitted its report ,
dated 21 May 2004, to the Court en banc;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Court, sitting en banc, hereby RESOLVES to approve and adopt the following Bar Examination Reforms:
A. For implementation within one (1) up to two (2) years:
1. Initial determination by the Chairman of admission to the bar examinations of candidates (on the merits of the each case) to be passed upon by the
Court en banc.
2. Submission by law deans of a certification that a candidate has no derogatory record in school and, if any, the details and status thereof.
3. Disqualification of a candidate after failing in three(3) examinations, provided, that he may take a fourth and fifth examination if he successful completes a
one (1) year refresher course for each examination; provided, further, that upon the effectivity of this Resolution, those who have already failed in five(5)
or more bar examinations shall be allowed to take only one (1) more bar examination after copleting (1) year refresher course.
4. Promulgation of disciplinary measures for those involved in (a) attempts to violate or vitiate the integrity and confidentiality of the bar examination
process; (b) improper conduct during the bar examination; and (c) improper conduct of "bar examinations."
5. Disqualification of a Bar Examination Chairperson:
a. kinship with an examinee who if his or her spouse or relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity;
b. having a member of his or her office staff as an examinee, or when the spouse or child of such staff member is an examinee; and
c. being a member of the governing board, faculty or administration of a law school.
6. Desirable qualifications of Examiners:
a. membership in good standing in the Philippine Bar;
b. competence in the assigned subject;
c. a teacher of the subject or familiarity with the principles of test construction; and
d. commitment to check test papers personally and promptly pending the creation and organization of the readership panels provided for in
item B(6) below
7. Disqualifications of Examiners:
a. kinship with an examinee who is his or her spouse or relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity;
b. having a member of his or her office staff as an examinee; or when the spouse or child of such staff member is an examinee;
c. being a member of the governing board, faculty or administration of a law school
d. teaching or lecturing in any law school, institution or review center during the particular semester following the bar examinations;
e. having any interest or involvement in any law school, bar review center or group; and
f. suspension or disbarment from the practice of law or the imposition of any other serious disciplinary sanction.

2010 Bar Matter No. 2265
CASE
RE: 2003 Bar Examinations, Atty. Daniel de
Guzman
GOOD MORAL CHARACTER AS A
PREREQUISITE TO BAR ADMISSION
8. Personal preparation, by handwriting or using a typewriter, of fifty (50) main questions, excluding subdivisions, and their submission to the Chairperson in
sealed envelope at least forty-five (45) days before the schedule examination on any particular subject; examiners should not use computers in preparing
questions;
9. Apportionment of examination questions among the various topics covered by the subject;
10. Burning and shredding of rough drafts and carbon papers used in the preparation of questions or in any other act connected with such preparation;
11. Publication of names candidates admitted to take the bar examinations;
12. Disqualification of a candidate who obtains a grade below 50% in any subject;
13. Fixing at June 30 of the immediately preceding year as the cut-off date for laws and Supreme Court decisions and resolutions to be included in the bar
examinations; and
14. Consideration of suggested answers to bar examinations questions prepared by the U.P. Law Center and submitted to the Chairperson.
B. For implementation within two (2) years up to five (5) years:
1. Adoption of objective multiple-choice questions for 30% to 40% of the total number of questions;
2. Formulation of essay test questions and "model answers" as part of the calibration of test papers;
3. Introduction of performance testing by way of revising and improving the essay examination;1awphil.net
4. Designation of two(2) examiners per subject depending on the number of examinees ;
5. Appointment of a tenured Board of Examiners with an incumbent Supreme Court Justice as Chairperson;
6. Creation and organization of readership panels for each subject area to address the issue of bias or subjectivity and facilitate the formulation of test
questions and the correction of examination booklets; and
7. Adoption of the calibration method in the corrections of essay questions to correct variations in the level of test standards.1awph!l.ñêt
C. For implementation within five(5) years and beyond is the further computerization or automation of the bar examinations to facilitate
application, testing, and reporting procedures.
D. Items not covered by this resolution, such as those that pertain to a possible review of the coverage and relative weights of the subjects of the
bar examinations, are maintained.
E. For referral to the Legal education Boards:
1. Accreditation and supervision of law schools.
2. Inclusion of a subject on clinical legal education in the law curriculum, including an apprenticeship program in the Judiciary, prosecution service, and law
offices.
3. Imposition of sanctions on law schools that fail to meet the standards as may be prescribed by the Legal Education Board.
4. Mandatory Law School Admission Test.
This resolution shall take effect on the fifteenth day of July 2004, and shall be published in two newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.
Promulgated this 8th day of June 2004.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated FEBRUARY 8, 2011, which reads as follows:
"B.M. No. 2265 (Re: Letter of Justice Roberto A. Abad Proposing Changes for Improving the Conduct of the Bar Examinations). - The Court Resolved to NOTE the Letter dated
January 28, 2011 of Justice Roberto A. Abad re: Amendment to Section 11, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court (Annual Examination), incident to the implementation of B.M. No. 2265
(Reforms in the 2011 Bar Examinations).
The Court further Resolved to APPROVE the Amendment to Section 11, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
"Section 11. Annual examination. - Examinations for admission to the bar of the Philippines shall take place annually in the City of Manila. They shall be held in four days to be
designated by the chairman of the committee on bar examiners. The subjects shall be distributed as follows: First day: Political and International Law, and Labor and Social
Legislation (morning) and Taxation (afternoon); Second day: Civil Law (morning) and Mercantile Law (afternoon); Third day: Remedial Law, and Legal Ethics and Forums (morning)
and Criminal Law (afternoon); Fourth day: Trial Memorandum (morning) and Legal Opinion (afternoon)". (adv107)
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
FACTS
 Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion
 While petitioner was still an associate lawyer of Balgoz & Perez, he downloaded from the computer of Balgos, who was then a mercantile law examiner, the test
questions for Mercantile law and faxed them to others
 Petitioner now prays to be reinstated to the practice of law
 Office of the Bar Confidant recommends for his reinstatement
RULING
 Recommendation of the OBC was well-taken
 Petitioner is worthy of clemency and the disbarment shall be may now be commuted to suspension of 7 years inclusive of the 5 years he has already served
 Penalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not to punish but to correct offenders
 Court knows how to show compassion when the penalty imposed has already served its purpose

CASE
IN RE: Al Argosino
CASE
In the Matter of the Disqualification of Bar
Examinee Haron S. Meling in the 2002 Bar
Examinations
Law Student Practice Rule
Rules of Court, Rule 138-A as amended by
BM No. 730
FACTS
 Petitioner, together with 13 other individuals, pleaded guilty to a lesser offense of homicide through reckless imprudence that caused the death of Raul Camaligan in
the course of hazing.
- Petitioner was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 4 years
- Afterwards, he also applied for probation which was granted and was set for 2 years
- Less than a month later, he filed a petition to be allowed to take the 2003 bar examination, which was also granted
 Petitioner passed the bar however, was not allowed to take the lawyer’s oath
ISSUE
WON Argosino has purged himself of the obvious deficiency in moral character
RULING
 The practice of law is a high personal privilege limited to citizens of good moral character, with special education qualifications, duly ascertained and certified
 Good moral character is of greater importance than possession of legal learning
 All aspects of moral character and behavior may be inquired into in respect to those seeking admission to the bar
- Broader than inquiry into the moral character of a lawyer in proceedings for disbarment
 Good moral character mist be present not only at the time application for permission to take the bar examinations but also at the time of application for admission to
the bar and to take the attorney oath of office
 Petitioner must present evidence that he may now be regarded as complying with the requirement of good moral character
- Sworn certifications
 By people who know him personally
 For a significant period of time
FACTS
 Atty. Froilan Melendrez filed with the OBC a petition to disqualify Haron Meling from taking the 2002 bar exam and to impose the appropriate disciplinary penalty as a
member of the Philippine Sharia bar
 Meling failed to disclose 3 pending criminal cases (2 grave oral defamation and 1 less serious physical injuries)
- Uttered defamatory terms against Melendrez and his wife
- Attacked and hit the face of Melendrez’s wife
 Also, Meling used “Atty.” in his communications as secretary to the mayor of Cotabato city
 Answer of Meling
- He thought that everything was already closed and terminated because Judge Corocoy Moson advised him to settle the misunderstanding
- He thought the case would be settled given that the judge has moral ascendancy over them
- “atty.” Was just typed by the office clerk
RULING
 Granting arguendo that cases were already dismissed, he is still required to disclose the same for the court to ascertain his good moral character
 Moral character is not a subjective term but one which corresponds to objective reality
 Violated Rule 7.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
- A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar
 Use of appellation “Atty.”
- May be liable for indirect contempt of court
 Meling did not pass the bar so the petition not to allow him to take the lawyer’s oath is moot
 Appropriate sanction as a member of sharia bar is ripe  suspended
 Members of the sharia bar are not full-fledged lawyers
IN RE: NEED THAT LAW STUDENT PRACTICING UNDER RULE 138-A BE ACTUALLY SUPERVISED DURING TRIAL (BAR MATTER NO. 730).
The issue in this Consulta is whether a law student who appears before the court under the Law Student Practice Rule (Rule 138-A) should be accompanied by a member of the
bar during the trial. This issue was raised by retired Supreme Court Justice Antonio P. Barredo, counsel for the defendant in Civil Case No. BCV-92-11 entitled Irene A. Caliwara
v. Roger T. Catbagan filed before the Regional Trial Court of Bacoor, Cavite.
The records show that the plaintiff in civil Case No. BCV-92-11 was represented by Mr. Cornelio Carmona, Jr., an intern at the Office of Legal Aid, UP-College of Law (UP-OLA).
Mr. Carmona conducted hearings and completed the presentation of the plaintiff's evidence-in-chief without the presence of a supervising lawyer. Justice Barredo questioned the
appearance of Mr. Carmona during the hearing because the latter was not accompanied by a duly accredited lawyer. On December 15, 1994, Presiding Judge Edelwina Pastoral
issued an Order requiring Mr. Carmona to be accompanied by a supervising lawyer on the next hearing. In compliance with said Order, UP-OLA and the Secretary of Justice
executed a Memorandum of Agreement directing Atty. Catubao and Atty. Legayada of the Public Attorney's Office to supervise Mr. Carmona during the subsequent hearings.
Justice Barredo asserts that a law student appearing before the trial court under Rule 138-A should be accompanied by a supervising lawyer. 1 On the other hand, UP-OLA,
through its Director, Atty. Alfredo F. Tadiar, submits that "the matter of allowing a law intern to appear unaccompanied by a duly accredited supervising lawyer should be . . . left
to the sound discretion of the court after having made at least one supervised appearance." 2
 For the guidance of the bench and bar, we hold that a law student appearing before the Regional Trial Court under Rule 138-A should at all times be accompanied by a supervising
lawyer. Section 2 of Rule 138-A provides.

Section 2. Appearance. — The appearance of the law student authorized by this rule, shall be under the direct supervision and control of a member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines duly accredited by the law school. Any and all pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or other papers to be filed, must be signed the by supervising attorney for and in
behalf of the legal clinic.

The phrase "direct supervision and control" requires no less than the physical presence of the supervising lawyer during the hearing. This is in accordance with the threefold
rationale behind the Law Student Practice Rule, to wit: 3

1. to ensure that there will be no miscarriage of justice as a result of incompetence or inexperience of law students, who, not having as yet
passed the test of professional competence, are presumably not fully equipped to act a counsels on their own;

2. to provide a mechanism by which the accredited law school clinic may be able to protect itself from any potential vicarious liability arising
from some culpable action by their law students; and

3. to ensure consistency with the fundamental principle that no person is allowed to practice a particular profession without possessing the
qualifications, particularly a license, as required by law.

The matter of allowing a law student to appear before the court unaccompanied by a supervising lawyer cannot be left to the discretion of the presiding judge. The rule clearly
states that the appearance of the law student shall be under the direct control and supervision of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by law schools.
The rule must be strictly construed because public policy demands that legal work should be entrusted only to those who possess tested qualifications, are sworn to observe the
rules and ethics of the legal profession and subject to judicial disciplinary control. 4 We said in Bulacan v. Torcino: 5

Court procedures are often technical and may prove like snares to the ignorant or the unwary. In the past, our law has allowed non-lawyers to appear for party
litigants in places where duly authorized members of the bar are not available (U.S. vs. Bacansas, 6 Phil. 539). For relatively simple litigation before municipal courts,
the Rules still allow a more educated or capable person in behalf of a litigant who cannot get a lawyer. But for the protection of the parties and in the interest of
justice, the requirement for appearances in regional trial courts and higher courts is more stringent.

The Law Student Practice Rule is only an exception to the rule. Hence, the presiding judge should see to it that the law student appearing before the court is properly guided and
supervised by a member of the bar.

The rule, however, is different if the law student appears before an inferior court, where the issues and procedure are relatively simple. In inferior courts, a law student may
appear in his personal capacity without the supervision of a lawyer. Section 34 Rule 138 provides;

Section 34. By whom litigation is conducted. — In the court of a justice of the peace, a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend
appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his
appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.

Thus, a law student may appear before an inferior court as an agent or friend of a party without the supervision of a member of the bar.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, we hold that a law student appearing before the Regional Trial Court under the authority of Rule 138-A must be under the direct control and supervision of
a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by the law school and that said law student must be accompanied by a supervising lawyer in all his appearance.

Cruz v Mina NOTE: Separate page for this digest

Non-Lawyers Authorized to Appear in

Courts/Quasi-Judicial Agencies
Section 33. Standing in court of person authorized to appear for Government. — Any official or other person appointed or designated in accordance with law to appear for the
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Secs. 33 & 34 Government of the Philippines shall have all the rights of a duly authorized member of the bar to appear in any case in which said government has an interest direct or indirect.
 Section 34. By whom litigation conducted. — In the court of a justice of the peace a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him
for the purpose, or with the aid an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be either personal
or by a duly authorized member of the bar.

Act No. 2259, Sec. 9 Sec. 9. Any person claiming any interest in any part of the lands, whether named in the notice or not, shall appear before the Court by himself, or by some person in his behalf and
shall file an answer on or before the return day or within such further time as may be allowed by the Court. The answer shall be signed and sworn to by the claimant or by some
person in his behalf, and shall state whether the claimant is married or unmarried, and, if married, the name of the husband or wife and the date of the marriage, and shall also
contain:

(a) The age of the claimant.

(b) The cadastral number of the lot or lots claimed, as appearing on the plan filed in the case by the Director of Lands, or the block and lot numbers, as the case may be.

(c) The name of the barrio and municipality, township, or settlement in which the lots are situated.

(d) The names of the owners of the adjoining lots as far as known to the claimant.

(e) If the claimant is in possession of the lots claimed and can show no express grant of the land by the Government to him or to his predecessors in interest, the answer shall
state the length of time he has held such possession and the manner in which it has been acquired, and shall also state the length of time, as far as known, during which his
predecessors, if any, held possession.

(f) If the claimant is not in possession or occupation of the lands, the answer shall fully set forth the interest claimed by him and the time and manner of its acquisition.

(g) If the lots have been assessed for taxation, their last assessed value.

(h) The encumbrance, if any, affecting the lots and the names of the adverse claimants as far as known.

Labor Code, Art. 222 Article. 222. Appearances and Fees. - (a) Non-lawyers may appear before the Commission or any Labor Arbiter only:

1. If they represent themselves; or 2. If they represent their organization or members thereof.

(b) No attorney’s fees, negotiation fees or similar charges of any kind arising from any collective bargaining agreement shall be imposed on any individual member of the
contracting union: Provided, However, that attorney’s fees may be charged against union funds in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties. Any contract, agreement or
arrangement of any sort to the contrary shall be null and void. (As amended by Presidential Decree No. 1691, May 1, 1980).

DARAB Section 18. Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows

SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. - The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department
of Agriculture (DA) and the DENR.

"It shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence but shall proceed to hear and decide all cases, disputes or controversies in a most expeditious
manner, employing all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of every case in accordance with justice and equity and the merits of the case. Toward this end, it shall
adopt a uniform rule of procedure to achieve a just, expeditious and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding before it.

"It shall have the power to summon witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, require submission of reports, compel the production of books and documents and
answers to interrogatories and issue subpoena, and subpoena duces tecum and to enforce its writs through sheriffs or other duly deputized officers. It shall likewise have
the power to punish direct and indirect contempts in the same manner and subject to the same penalties as provided in the Rules of Court.

"Responsible farmer leaders shall be allowed to represent themselves, their fellow farmers, or their organizations in any proceedings before the DAR Provided,
however, That when there are two or more representatives for any individual or group, the representatives should choose only one among themselves to represent
such party or group before any DAB proceedings.

"Notwithstanding an appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision of the DAR shall be immediately executory except a decision or a portion thereof involving solely
the issue of just compensation."

Section 19. Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding Section 50-A to read as follows:
 "SEC. 50-A. Exclusive Jurisdiction on Agrarian Dispute. - No court or prosecutor's office shall take cognizance of cases pertaining to the implementation of the CARP
except those provided under Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended. If there is an allegation from any of the parties that the case is agrarian in nature and
one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant, the case shall be automatically referred by the judge or the prosecutor to the DAR which shall determine and
certify within fifteen (15) days from referral whether an agrarian dispute exists: Provided, That from the determination of the DAR, an aggrieved party shall have
judicial recourse. In cases referred by the municipal trial court and the prosecutor's office, the appeal shall be with the proper regional trial court, and in cases
referred by the regional trial court, the appeal shall be to the Court of Appeals.

"In cases where regular courts or quasi-judicial bodies have competent jurisdiction, agrarian reform beneficiaries or identified beneficiaries and/or their associations
shall have legal standing and interest to intervene concerning their individual or collective rights and/or interests under the CARP.

"The fact of non-registration of such associations with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or Cooperative Development Authority, or any concerned
government agency shall not be used against them to deny the existence of their legal standing and interest in a case filed before such courts and quasi-judicial bodies."

Local Government Code RA 7160, Sec. 415 Section 415. Appearance of Parties in Person. - In all katarungang pambarangay proceedings, the parties must appear in person without the assistance of counsel or representative,
except for minors and incompetents who may be assisted by their next-of-kin who are not lawyers.

Rules of Procedure for Small Claims AM Section 17. Appearance of Attorneys Not Allowed. - No attorney shall appear in behalf of or represent a party at the hearing, unless the attorney is the plaintiff or defendant.
No. 08-8-7-SC, Sec. 17
If the court determines that a party cannot properly present his/her claim or defense and needs assistance, the court may, in its discretion, allow another individual who is not an
attorney to assist that party upon the latter's consent.

Restrictions/Prohibitions on Government
Lawyers
Art. VII, Sec. 13 SECTION 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other
office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially
interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-
owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.

Art. IX-A, Sec. 2 SECTION 2. No Member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any other office or employment. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession
or in the active management or control of any business which in any way be affected by the functions of his office, nor shall he be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any
contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the Government, any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries.

Art. IX, Sec. 8, 2nd par. SECTION 8. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines, and at the time of their appointment, at least forty years old, of recognized probity
and independence, and members of the Philippine Bar, and must not have been candidates for any elective office in the immediately preceding election. The Ombudsman must have
for ten years or more been a judge or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.

During their tenure, they shall be subject to the same disqualifications and prohibitions as provided for in Section 2 of Article IX-A of this Constitution.

Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 35 Section 35.Certain attorneys not to practice. — No judge or other official or employee of the superior courts or of the Office of the Solicitor General, shall engage in private
practice as a member of the bar or give professional advice to clients.

RA 7160 Sec. 90 Section 90. Practice of Profession. -

(a) All governors, city and municipal mayors are prohibited from practicing their profession or engaging in any occupation other than the exercise of their functions as
local chief executives.

(b) Sanggunian members may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in schools except during session hours: Provided, That sanggunian
members who are also members of the Bar shall not:

(1) Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local government unit or any office, agency, or instrumentality of the government is the
adverse party;
 (2) Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the national or local government is accused of an offense committed in
relation to his office.

(3) Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the local government unit of which he is an official; and

(4) Use property and personnel of the government except when the sanggunian member concerned is defending the interest of the government.

(c) Doctors of medicine may practice their profession even during official hours of work only on occasions of emergency: Provided, That the officials concerned do
not derive monetary compensation therefrom.

RA 6713, Sec. 7(b)(2) Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following
shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(a) Financial and material interest. - Public officials and employees shall not, directly or indirectly, have any financial or material interest in any transaction requiring the
approval of their office.

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. - Public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not:

(1) Own, control, manage or accept employment as officer, employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee or nominee in any private enterprise
regulated, supervised or licensed by their office unless expressly allowed by law;

(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to
conflict with their official functions; or

(3) Recommend any person to any position in a private enterprise which has a regular or pending official transaction with their office.

Rev. Civil Service Rules, Rule XVII, Sec. 12 MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 17 - REVOKING MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 1025 DATED NOVEMBER 25, 1977

Memorandum Circular No. 1025 dated November 25, 1977 "PROHIBITING ANY GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL AND EMPLOYEE FROM ACCEPTING PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT
IN ANY CAPACITY WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT," is hereby revoked.

The authority to grant permission to any official or employee shall be granted by the head of the ministry or agency in accordance with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil
Service Rules, which provides:

"Sec. 12. No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private business, vocation, or profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural, or industrial
undertaking without a written permission from the head of Department; Provided, That his prohibition will be absolute in the case of those officers and employees whose duties
and responsibilities require that their entire time be at the disposal of the Government: Provided, further, That if an employee is granted permission to engage in outside activities,
the time so devoted outside of office hours should be fixed by the chief of the agency to the end that it will not impair in any way the efficiency of the officer or employee: And
provided, finally, That no permission is necessary in the case of investments, made by an officer or employee, which do not involve any real or apparent conflict between his
private interests and public duties, or in any way influence him in the discharge of his duties, and he shall not take part in the management of the enterprise or become an officer
or member of the board of directors",

Subject to any additional conditions which the head of the office deems necessary in each particular case in the interest of the service, as expressed in the various issuances of the
Civil Service Commission.

Manila, September 4, 1986.

CASE FACTS
People v Villanueva  Chief of Police of Alaminos, Laguna, charged Simplicio Villanueva with the Crime of Malicious Mischief before the Justice of the Peace Court of said
municipality.
- Said accused was represented by counsel de officio but later on replaced by counsel de parte.
 The complainant in the same case was represented by City Attorney Ariston Fule of San Pablo City
- entered his appearance as private prosecutor after securing the permission of the Secretary of Justice
- condition of his appearance as such, was that every time he would appear at the trial of the case, he would be considered on official leave of absence, and that
he would not receive any payment for his services.
 The appearance of City Attorney Fule as private prosecutor was questioned by the counsel for the accused, invoking the case of Aquino, et al. vs. Blanco, et al.
 - "when an attorney had been appointed to the position of Assistant Provincial Fiscal or City Fiscal and therein qualified, by operation of law, he ceased to engage
in private law practice."
 counsel for the accused presented a "Motion to Inhibit Fiscal Fule from Acting as Private Prosecutor in this Case,"
- invoking Section 32, Rule 27, now Sec. 35, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court, which bars certain attorneys from practicing.
 JP Court ruled on the motion by upholding the right of Fule to appear and further stating that he (Fule) was not actually enagaged in private law practice.

RULING

The fallacy of the theory of defense counsel lies in his confused interpretation of Section 32 of Rule 127 (now Sec. 35, Rule 138, Revised Rules), which provides that "no judge or
other official or employee of the superior courts or of the office of the Solicitor General, shall engage in private practice as a member of the bar or give professional advice to
clients." He claims that City Attorney Fule, in appearing as private prosecutor in the case was engaging in private practice. We believe that the isolated appearance of City
Attorney Fule did not constitute private practice within the meaning and contemplation of the Rules. Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or
customary actions, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is frequent habitual exercise. Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of statute has been
interpreted as customarily or habitually holding one's self out to the public, as customarily and demanding payment for such services. The appearance as counsel on one occasion is
not conclusive as determinative of engagement in the private practice of law. The following observation of the Solicitor General is noteworthy:

Essentially, the word private practice of law implies that one must have presented himself to be in the active and continued practice of the legal profession and that his
professional services are available to the public for a compensation, as a source of his livelihood or in consideration of his said services.

For one thing, it has never been refuted that City Attorney Fule had been given permission by his immediate superior, the Secretary of Justice, to represent the complainant in the
case at bar, who is a relative.

CASE FACTS
Ramos v Imbang  Diana Ramos sought the assistance of respondent Atty. Jose R. Imbang in filing civil and criminal actions against the spouses Roque and Elenita Jovellanos.
 She gave respondent P8,500 as attorney's fees but the latter issued a receipt for P5,000 only
 The complainant tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her cases against the Jovellanoses.
- respondent never allowed her to enter the courtroom and always told her to wait outside.
- He would then come out after several hours to inform her that the hearing had been cancelled and rescheduled.
- This happened six times and for each appearance in court, respondent charged her P350.
 After six consecutive postponements, the complainant became suspicious.
- She personally inquired about the status of her cases in the trial courts of Bian and San Pedro, Laguna.
 She was shocked to learn that respondent never filed any case against the Jovellanoses and that he was in fact employed in the Public Attorney's Office (PAO).

RULING
Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with honesty and integrity. More specifically, lawyers in government service are expected to be more conscientious of their actuations
as they are subject to public scrutiny. They are not only members of the bar but also public servants who owe utmost fidelity to public service.

Government employees are expected to devote themselves completely to public service. For this reason, the private practice of profession is prohibited. Section 7(b)(2) of the Code
of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides:

Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. -- In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and
existing laws, the following constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared unlawful:

xxx xxx xxx

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto, public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not:

xxx xxx xxx

(1) Engage in the private practice of profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict with their official
function.

Thus, lawyers in government service cannot handle private cases for they are expected to devote themselves full-time to the work of their respective offices.

Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship.[26] Respondent's admission that he accepted money from the complainant and the receipt confirmed
the presence of an attorney-client relationship between him and the complainant. Moreover, the receipt showed that he accepted the complainant's case while he was still a
government lawyer. Respondent clearly violated the prohibition on private practice of profession.

Aggravating respondent's wrongdoing was his receipt of attorney's fees. The PAO was created for the purpose of providing free legal assistance to indigent litigants.
As a PAO lawyer, respondent should not have accepted attorney's fees from the complainant as this was inconsistent with the office's mission

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

CANON 1. A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND
LEGAL PROCESSES.
onsequently, respondent's acceptance of the cases was also a breach of Rule 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility because the prohibition on the private practice of
profession disqualified him from acting as the complainant's counsel.

Aside from disregarding the prohibitions against handling private cases and accepting attorney's fees, respondent also surrep titiously deceived the complainant. Not only did he fail
to file a complaint against the Jovellanoses (which in the first place he should not have done), respondent also led the complainant to believe that he really filed an action against the
Jovellanoses. He even made it appear that the cases were being tried and asked the complainant to pay his appearance fees for hearings that never took place. These acts constituted
dishonesty, a violation of the lawyer's oath not to do any falsehood.

There is, however, insufficient basis to find respondent guilty of violating Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent did not hold the money for the benefit
of the complainant but accepted it as his attorney's fees. He neither held the amount in trust for the complainant (such as an amount delivered by the sheriff in satisfaction of a
judgment obligation in favor of the client) nor was it given to him for a specific purpose (such as amounts given for filing fees and bail bond). [34] Nevertheless, respondent should
return the P5,000 as he, a government lawyer, was not entitled to attorney's fees and not allowed to accept them.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Jose R. Imbang is found guilty of violating the lawyers oath, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 18, Rule 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, he is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. He is also ordered to return to complainant
the amount of P5,000 with interest at the legal rate, reckoned from 1995, within 10 days from receipt of this resolution.